|
NOTE: I am not bragging! Most people I play with are at about the same level as me both with respect to the build and in game play. Some are a little better as a particular facet and some are a little worse. I am perfectly well aware there are many players much better. There is at least one group in my area that I did not fit into because they completely outclassed my gaming in terms of optimization and effective play.
For one reason or another, sometimes my characters or play style have been performing better than some other party members. Reasons can range: Character is a better fit for the campaign/encounter (channel specialist vs numerous weak undead). Magic out performed skills (divinations happened to be more effective than the social skill monkey). Particular opponent tactics (reach and combat reflexes vs goblin wave attacks). Inexperienced or lack of player knowledge. PC personality (This PC will always charge in even if bad idea). Etc…
This is certainly not always (or even often) the case.
A couple of times I’ve been told something along the lines of, “Give the other guys a chance. Just fight badly for a while.” I will admit, this kinda bothers me. Both out of character and especially in character. Not because I need to be the best, but because it doesn’t make sense and is inconsistent.
- If you want to make a barbarian that is dumb as a post and always uses the same tactic even if a bad idea, that’s fine. I have no problem with it. It can be fun and I’ve done it myself. But why would my highly intelligent and tactically trained lorewarden use inferior tactics just so your single tactic can shine just as much.
In character, wouldn’t it make more sense for my guy to try and teach yours a better way through example?
Out of character, you knowingly chose to play a gimped character for RP reasons but now you don’t want the downside of the gimp?
- You don’t want me to use my cold iron arrows even though all the PC’s know they are useful to pass the DR of this opponent because no one else bought a cold iron weapon.
In character, that’s just ridiculous.
Out of character, I just wasted money buying them and now there is no reason for anyone to buy them. Why?
- Let the enemy archers shoot for a few rounds before you fireball them so the others can pick off a few.
In character, I’m supposed to wait on using a spell that I know will be needed while the archers shoot my friends just so they can get off a few shots?!?
Out of character, that’s exactly why I have a caster with the mook clearing spells.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not out to embarrass the other players. And a little bit of it can be accomplished legitimately in character. Tactics might not be perfect because I’m trying to keep my dumb friend alive. Caster saves the cone of cold because it might be needed for the next fight. Only have a few cold iron arrows left so I’m saving them in case the BBEG is also a demon.
I especially try not to show up new players. Though even there I am much more likely to give them suggestions on what would be effective for them than to just play stupid myself. For one thing, if I just play stupid they don’t see the other possibilities or learn. For another, there are very effective things I can do that still let them shine (buffing or clearing the mooks so they can take the BBEG).
I have no problem making the character less powerful in this specific circumstance. Use lower point buy. Or maybe switch the type of build. I once had a maneuver specialist in a campaign that ended up being mostly low cmd casters. I didn’t know what was coming so my build was unintentionally dominating. Remade the PC as a high survival tank. Still useful but not game ending.
But I have a problem playing a character worse than designed. Why should every character always be the same effectiveness regardless of build, tactics, applicability, etc…
If you have been in situations like this, please let me know how you think they should be handled.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
NOTE: I am not bragging! Most people I play with are at about the same level as me both with respect to the build and in game play. Some are a little better as a particular facet and some are a little worse. I am perfectly well aware there are many players much better. There is at least one group in my area that I did not fit into because they completely outclassed my gaming in terms of optimization and effective play.
If you're making the game not-fun for other people at the table, you should do something differently. If nothing else, you drive people away from the hobby otherwise.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rather than dumbing yourself down, maybe try and reduce the amount of role overlap in the party. That way everyone can be good at something and the chances of someone stepping on someone's toes are minimized.
This, naturally, will require you to talk openly to the other players about the problem, which you should be doing anyways.
|
|
NOTE: I am not bragging! Most people I play with are at about the same level as me both with respect to the build and in game play. Some are a little better as a particular facet and some are a little worse. I am perfectly well aware there are many players much better. There is at least one group in my area that I did not fit into because they completely outclassed my gaming in terms of optimization and effective play.If you're making the game not-fun for other people at the table, you should do something differently. If nothing else, you drive people away from the hobby otherwise.
In the cases where I am aware my character was consistently taking away from the enjoyment of the other characters. I did. I made a different character. The GM at the time suggest I just 'play dumb' instead of retiring the character. So my trained maneuver fighter would rarely use maneuvers that were obviously the best choice in the situation?!?
In the cases where I was only better in that specific instance I don't know that I was making the game 'not-fun' for anyone else.
There was just a nebulous statement/request indicating that everyone should do about the same most all the time.
Rather than dumbing yourself down, maybe try and reduce the amount of role overlap in the party. That way everyone can be good at something and the chances of someone stepping on someone's toes are minimized.
This, naturally, will require you to talk openly to the other players about the problem, which you should be doing anyways.
I have not had any indication from the other players of a problem except the 2 times when I retired/replaced my PC's because they were to exact for the campaign.
I don't want to get too specific, but I had a statement from the GM prior to the session that was fairly close to, "You will be able to get through tonight's encounter pretty easily. Don't do that so the others can also do some stuff."
I would love to plan our characters so there isn't excessive overlap. I've been trying to get the other players to do that for quite a while. They are very much against it. they plan out their characters completely in isolation. "The party just has to find some way to deal with whatever 5 characters the fates throw together."
If you have a clear idea of what sort of character you're playing, then acting stupidly is hard to swallow. It's probably best to play another character. A buffing bard, battlefield controller, healer or similar supportive character would allow you to act as you please while still letting the other players get the kills.
It sounds like there's something of spotlight issue between you and some of the other players in the group.
I see that you mentioned on alternative would be taking action that would benefit other players and help them shine, like putting buff spells on them. What else might the you do to incorporate your strategy and abilities with those of the other players so the spotlight's focused on the team rather than any single player?
|
|
It sounds like there's something of spotlight issue between you and some of the other players in the group.
I see that you mentioned on alternative would be taking action that would benefit other players and help them shine, like putting buff spells on them. What else might the you do to incorporate your strategy and abilities with those of the other players so the spotlight's focused on the team rather than any single player?
I have recently played a PC that is primarily a buff heal bot. He got virtually no spotlight but was appreciated. I had no problem with that because that is what he was designed to do.
I will repeat.
It doesn't happen all the time, or even all that often, that my PC is doing better than the other PC's. I really do not think I get more 'spotlight time' than the others. The two times that my builds did do that I made new characters specifically to eliminate the issue.
None of the other players have said anything about it. The GM has preemptively asked me to play stupid a few times to give others a chance to do things.
If these are player requests getting to me through the GM, I have no way to know it. My question was about the way I am being asked to address the issue.
To me, "playing stupid" is itself stupid. I was trying to find out if I'm the only one who felt that way. If others had received the same type of requests. How they responded if they had received the same request.
Never been asked. While I GM more than I play, none of my GM's has ever gone that way. Why not? Because it's bad GMing.
If a GM introduces an encounter or "dungeon" where one character will clearly outshine the others because of rules mechanics it should clearly support the campaign story (most hopefully that PC's back story) or provide a spotlight for a character that's fallen to the background through no fault of his own. In either case it should be used sparingly and in no case should a GM ask a player to play foolishly. That is, as the OP said, "stupid."
It shouldn't be possible for characters of the same level to dramatically outshine one another unless either magic items are way out of whack, the players have widely varying experience with the rules or one character is built with unbalanced variant rules.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But I have a problem playing a character worse than designed. Why should every character always be the same effectiveness regardless of build, tactics, applicability, etc…
Holding back is an even more difficult challenge than going all out. When the rest of the table is not up to par with your skill, softballing is a great way to make sure everyone feels like a part of the team.
This also has the benefit that when the chips are truly down, you can go all out and save the party from a TPK. Walking this line is a balance that takes time and experience to learn.
You can even work it into your character. "I'm going to do him with my left hand. It's over too quickly otherwise." "These peons aren't worth my full effort." "I shall fight like my grandmother to give you a sporting chance. One of you may even survive."
If you have a slider of effectiveness, the only way everyone can be the same is if you never move that slider.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it's an issue of you out shining other players, that the GM has to ask you to tone it down, then I think it may be an issue with the GM.
As a GM for **cough, cough** number of years, I find the best way to make a game enjoyable for everyone is to make various plots and story hooks that give an opportunity for each player to be the spot light.
If the general campaign is about the guy with the Swiss Army Knife of options, and all the Barbarian brought is a hammer - occasionally make the story about hitting the nail.
When I ran a story that was focused on a murder mystery and political intrigue, the player who made the 1 dimensional fighter was bored and felt left out. I adapted part of the story to include the Gladiatorial Arena, in such a way that the fighter would be the best suited to infiltrate the part of the plot. The group basically spent an entire session sitting around watching him roll dice, and they loved it, because they got to watch him get involved (and started a betting ring on the side in and out of character).
When I had an NPC tribal leader leading his tribe to battle along side the players, I gave control of the NPC to the Skill Monkey who was going to have to sit out of the fight, because his character was never meant for straight combat, and the party opted to go that route.
As a GM, having a player that might be better at playing - or just better suited to the situation - means that I should be stepping up my to ensure everyone has fun, not asking you to step your game down...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your title and your OP are not the same topic.
Should players intentionally use poor tactics? No.
Should A player occasionally hold himself back to give less skilled/newer players a chance to shine? Sure.
It can even be fun.
I Not Left handed and Let's Get Dangerous are two of my favorite tropes.
You dial it back, let your allies share the spotlight...and when things get grim, you're starting to lose, or there's just an awesome opponent you can't afford to or can't stand to hold back on...let loose.
I don't know... If I so much as suspected someone was dumbing down their performance to make me feel better, I would be insulted.
I would just try being a team player. There are manuevers and spells aplenty that empower the guy down initiative line and make you look badass.
That being said, are you sure the dm asked you to nerf yourself for the players, or himself? The way you say it, it seems he's the only one who takes issue with you.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Have you considered teamwork? You know... suspending your ego long enough to set somebody else up for success?
You don't have to dumb down your own tactics to help others shine if your tactics include others in the first place.
The GM needs to step his game up. If he is running an AP he should consider changing a few things around.
the other players need to study your performance and learn from you through your example. show how useful the various special materials are, show the players the benefit of preparing backup weapons, show the players the benefits of emergency consumable use, show them the healing wand, and show them the synergies of working together.
single combatant duels are not the way to go, but if say, you showed them the benefit of focus fire, and the benefit of adaptability, they could learn from that.
Let me look at the OPs examples:
- The lorewarden fighter. Depends on the tactic he uses. If he uses combat maneuvers again it depends. But if you, for example trip someone you could belittle him for a round instead of just killing him off and moving on to the next guy. But all in all this is a hard one.
- Cold iron arrows: If there is only one BBEG it really IS silly to not use them. If there are multiple opponents you could kill one and then switch to normal arrows in case you need the cold iron ones later.
- Mage vs archers: Sure, just killing them would be easiest. Instead you could cast a wind wall so your party can get to melee without being shot. Not perfect maybe but a valid choice, too. By adding something like "Try shooting us now, you scum!" you make it even better. Instead of just killing them you show them who's the boss before your party kills them.
Like others said there is a difference between playing stupid and not using the optimal solution.
Some years ago I was playing shadowrun with some friends. A game in which the mundane/caster disparity is as big as in PF. I was playing a tank guy who really could survive much. Even a direct missile hit. My pal was playing am kind of mage (mouse shaman). He could have chosen the right spells to dominate everything but he did not.
One day we were attacked be a sniper who (luckily) was nearby on a house roof. The shaman was invisible when the attack hit. He could have just killed the sniper with a spell. Instead he put an armor spell on me, making me more or less impervious to a puny sniper rifle (combined with my cyberware, armor and stats) and I killed the guy in a shootout, pistol vs sniper rifle.
We both still like to share this story.
Had he just killed the guy we'd have no reason to.
|
|
...
Should players intentionally use poor tactics? No.Should A player occasionally hold himself back to give less skilled/newer players a chance to shine? Sure...
Yes, I absolutely agree. On those rare occasions when I am playing with "less skilled/newer players" I do everything I can (even if it makes little sense in character) to help them have all the fun they can. Even then, I think it is better to help them do good rather than give the bad learning example of me playing stupid.
That is not the case here. These players are pretty much at my skill experience/capability level. I do not outshine them on a regular basis.
...
It can even be fun.I Not Left handed and Let's Get Dangerous are two of my favorite tropes...
Those are not my favorite tropes. Unless it is a comedy, revenge mission, distraction, stall, insane character, or something like that; it doesn't make sense. When I see it in a novel it is, to me, an example of poor writing.
Lets say you are in a military unit operating behind enemy lines or a police swat team and the weapon specialist starts doing things like "shooting left handed so the rest of you guys have a chance to shoot something." That guy would be accidentally fragged by friendly fire or at least 'red sheeted' to teach him a lesson....
You dial it back, let your allies share the spotlight...and when things get grim, you're starting to lose, or there's just an awesome opponent you can't afford to or can't stand to hold back on...let loose.
I wasn't asked to 'dial it back a bit.' I was told to do what I consider stupid things to give others a chance.
I do share the spotlight. I probably get less spotlight time than most of the others. I almost never run spotlight hog characters like a high DPR martial, SoD caster, or optimized blaster. I just don't do those. I tend to run a tank, maneuver, or debuff guy. I look for opportunities to provide flanking to the rogue, not get in the way of the gunslinger, or block access to the squishies. In the group I am more of a teamwork player than anyone else.
I always hold back resources for the BBEG. At the end, I usually have significantly more resources left than any other PC.
I don't know... If I so much as suspected someone was dumbing down their performance to make me feel better, I would be insulted...
Ever notice that "I let you win" is typical trash talking. Why would it be better received if it was literally true?
I certainly wouldn't want it done to me.
|
|
Have you considered teamwork? You know... suspending your ego long enough to set somebody else up for success?
You don't have to dumb down your own tactics to help others shine if your tactics include others in the first place.
I am not an ego driven spotlight hog. I do include the others in tactics and plans.
Ok, I was trying to not get too specific in case the GM read this. But it has probably gone on far enough to be recognizable anyway.
Casters could not use area affect spells. Tank didn't tank any of the hits. My reach area denial martial didn't get any AoO. I was trying to get safer more effective team plans in place. The bruiser was in-character and by design not a team player.
The GM asked me to sometimes draw my back-up weapon and in leather armor to also charge the BBEG so the bruiser didn't look so bad. The bruiser had not died and was racking up kills. The player of the bruiser did not seem unhappy with the results.
Their decision. My switch hitting ranger bought all the weapon blanches and ghost salt for arrows, an oil of magic weapon, a cold iron short sword and a silver short sword. As a switch hitter and skill monkey, my damage was not high so I felt I needed to always be able to have max effect (such as it was) on all the fantastical magical opponents we would expected to be facing. My decision.
I was asked by GM to not use the equipment I had purchased because I was doing more damage than the high DPR builds against the DR creatures. Against the normal creatures they way out damaged my PC. At the end of the first mission they would all be able to buy a magic weapon. My PC would not be able to afford it.
I was asked by GM to wait before using the area affect spells so the other guys could get some kills and it wouldn't all be about me.
Again I was not hogging the spot light. I am not on an ego trip. I was asked to play stupid so everyone could have a big effect all the time.
Kydeem, are you posting with 2 of your aliases on the same thread? It's getting confusing.
The best I can say is... change group? It seriously seems to be a group dynamics question that you arent able to be quite satisfied with. Like a good 75% of group problems I've seen on the forums. You aint having fun, go somewhere else. Life is too short to play with people who dont make your game fun.
Your GM does seem to be gimping you significantly, but again, that comes down to group dynamics. It can get messed up.
|
|
Oops. Yes sorry I did accidentally make one post under a different alias. I use a different alias for different categories of posts to help organize them for myself.
I don't know that it is a group issue. Unless 1 or more of the players are secretly going to the GM and asking him to tell me to do these things. I haven't heard any players complaining (although 1 PC did for in-character personality reasons). I haven't seen any disappointed faces around the table. Though I admit I am not the most empathic person.
The GM doesn't do this all the time. Just every so often he asks me to use dumb tactics so everyone else will look better.
This is not my normal group. I play with these guys occasionally when I go back home for a long visit.
I really don't want to quit the group. I was trying to find out if others have gone through this and how they handled it. Or if others thought it was normal, I should just play along, and do what he asked.
Well, for a genuine answer to your question, here's my take:
-Are you still having fun? Then roll with it. Heck, play your own dumb/conceptually unoptimized characters. This does not seem to be a group that takes itself to seriously, so it might be better to try out exotic (if inneficient) concepts. Play your serious stuff elsewhere.
-Are you not having fun? Then express your frustration. Be calm, express why you feel frustrated. You can ask you friends how to get around this, BUT DO NOT ASK THEM TO JUSTIFY THEMSELVES. The confrontational nature of that kind of question is needlessly inflamatory. Then work with their responses. Worst case scenario, either quit OR become GM yourself. NOW THEY WILL DANCE ON YOU PUPPETEER'S STRINGS! MUHAHAHAHA! Sorry for that. But yeah, do your best to calmly express the situation. Write your stuff down if you want more structure. Focus on "how can WE have more fun together" rather than "how can YOU not suck so much" (which seems to have been the tone of your statements until now Jorin). I dont know all the situation, so I want to avoid reccomending aggressive actions against people I dont know.
In the limited experience I have with the forums, this is not the type of question I have ever seen "answered". The bearing is too strongly emotional.
These boards are great for a few types of questions:
-Mechanical questions
-Optimization questions
Outside of that, I have rarely seen subjective questions answered. The discussion tends to diverge A LOT.
|
|
... rather than "how can YOU not suck so much" (which seems to have been the tone of your statements until now Jorin)...
Hmm... If so, that was unintentional. I have not been unhappy with the performance of the other PC's. To me, the other players did not appear to be unhappy with their performance. It seemed to just be the GM that wants all the characters to contribute equally most all the time.
Most of the time, yes I have fun. These occasional GM requests to be stupid I find very annoying.
My characters are not performing substantially above the other players now. If I make one so sub-optimal that he never out performs any one, I won't be pulling my weight.
I don't think I can GM for this group. (I do some times in another group.) The guy that is GM does not like to be a player.
If the other players really are secretly going to the GM with these requests, I can't see them admitting that they want me to play stupid if they were being secretive about it before.
If they are not, then a discussion with them won't have any effect except confusion.
I suppose I can try to have a conversation with just the GM. But he tends to not take things like that very well. I am not annoyed enough that I want to quit the group, but I wouldn't be surprised if the conversation eventually leads to that because of hurt feelings.
Oh well. I may chance it.
Here's something I posted a little while ago:
Well, you see- those of us who have a certain level of skill mastery only optimize our characters to be a notch above the newer players. Thus- fun for all.
Yes, it does take even more system mastery that the optimizers use here on these boards to do it, but it's worth it.
You design a PC who is fun, optimized just enough, and survivable. No need to be the biggest bad-$$$ at the table- the game is not a competition, there are no "winners".
Help the newbs avoid the more crippling mistakes without railroading them. if they want to play a rogue, do tell them about Bards or that super archetype the Ninja- but then if they don't like that idea, just make a few suggestions. Don't say "Oh Noes, rouges are teh suxxor, you CAN'T play one of those, it's badwrongfun."
I find I enjoy the game way, WAY more when the whole table is having fun.
Look man, I'm just trying to show you the options I see; I'm not in your situation, and this seems (again, I've only got your words) to be a contentious social situation. But other than addressing the issue, I dont see how else it can be dealt with. If your GM isnt willing to listen to your concerns (which doesnt mean obey your requests), and try to make the game funner for everyone, they don't sound very pleasant.
But I am getting inconsistent messages. You worry about not pulling your weight, but clearly some players (like that charging barbie) dont really seem to be either. Is this group focused on mechanical success, roleplay, both? If you're there to perform mechanically, why is the barbarian stuff tolerated, while yours is not? Why was your diviner forced to take spells he didnt want, while the barbarian was allowed to charge everywhere? There are a lot of questions that I can only see answered through frank discussion. Hopefully everyone involved (including you) is (emotionally) mature enough to do so. This is one of those issues I cant really see solved by people on the internet. Just, be careful man, I dont see much good coming out of this situation.
Also, I've heard a lot of people reccomending AGAINST playing with friends, since it can more easily lead to hurt feelings & other conflict that bleeds into the gaming.
|
|
Look man, I'm just trying to show you the options I see ...
I'm not upset with you. You are one of the few that is actually replying to what I actually said. Instead of accusing me of being ego pumper, you are actually reading what I wrote and trying to help.
I do appreciate that.
... Also, I've heard a lot of people reccomending AGAINST playing with friends, since it can more easily lead to hurt feelings & other conflict that bleeds into the gaming.
I can see that. I also find it a bit sad. Over the years I've found and gamed with some of my best friends.
But I can see why someone might say that.
Well, I've not seen the problem yet, because I have no friends! (self deprecating humor is best humor!) But I do know some relationships can become very emotionally charged, which leads to complications as well as magical experiences. You seem to be getting the complications side at the moment.
And to as I see it, we are all a little less mature than we would like to believe, and I still ocasionally find myself getting hurt by things I honestly thought I would be able to take in stride. It's unfortunate, but your all friends arent you? As far as I know, they arent trying to frustrate you at least? This is (in my opinion) a complex social situation that internauts cant help much on. Your friends, on the other hand, might.
I was asked by GM to wait before using the area affect spells so the other guys could get some kills and it wouldn't all be about me.
Again I was not hogging the spot light. I am not on an ego trip. I was asked to play stupid so everyone could have a big effect all the time.
If that's the case (all of it not just the quote) you should next time if another pc tells you what to do, look at your GM and ask him: If I memorize those spells am I allowed to use them?
Or: I was not allowed to use my special material weapons, I guess I can get the money reimbursed and now buy a magic weapon, too.
And for situation 1: I would just decline. If someone plays intentionally bad I don't do the same by rushing in and rescuing him.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In case the topic of the GM killing you after you held back comes up:
If I hold back the GM should not kill my character since I could have survived. A brand new blank character sheet is not a good reward for being a team player.
PS: "I" is not referring to me specifically. It is referring to anyone who is being told to hold back in certain situations.
|
We all acknowledge a player who knows the system can optimize a superior combat build to other players. The other players catch on pretty quickly that their characters are less effective, whether by build or lack of mastery of the system.
Other players can become disgruntled. They're not looking to make superior combat machines and they might be getting by with sub-par builds in a campaign that isn't a meat grinder. My group has a player who is figuring it out (simple fighter type) and a skilled optimizer (a CMB dirty-trick fighting unarmed character with invisibility and sneak attacks with better AC and saves whose damage doubles the fighter type). There isn't a need for optimization in certain campaigns, and I leave it to player to resolve if they've "overdone" it, whether by build or tactics.
You appear to be bothered by the GM asking you to "tone down" when you feel you already have. A lot of "could be's here":
It's possible the GM has made a player-friendly campaign in which optimized play isn't needed and he's trying to communicate such. Could be the GM has been approached by other players who get bored when your characters always make the optimal calls in all things mechanical and numbers. Could be the GM doesn't want to up the intensity of his encounters to challenge you to the detriment of others. Could be the GM and/or other players prefer a simpler style of play.
Rather than guess, I'd chat with the GM over a beer, or if you're underage, a root beer. See what's up.
If your character is tactically inept, then you should play him that way.
TBH for a caster, the Fireball IS usually the poor tactic/"goofing off".
Did the DM make requests for dumbing down in front of other players? If he did, what was their reaction? It could tell you a lot about who's making those requests. Maybe he asks everybody things like this?
Another question, is this an AP or homebrew campaign?
Another point of advice, in situations like second and third example you gave, you should have acted immediately to point out those things. Later is too late 'cause the situation is already over. And those two situations make it really unfair to you, but you must make other players and DM realize that (while I think DM realizes that, i cannot tell over the internet). First situation is a bit trickier, 'cause it impinges on telling another character what (not) to do. And the request DM made should just be ignored (on the same basis).
|
|
Did the DM make requests for dumbing down in front of other players? If he did, what was their reaction? It could tell you a lot about who's making those requests. Maybe he asks everybody things like this?...
No, not in front of the other players. I usually get to his house first. It was before the others arrived.
... Another question, is this an AP or homebrew campaign?...
Homebrew campaign.
OK, talk to your DM, and ask him why does he think it's necessary for you to dumb down your tactics. Ask him is he making similar requests from other people, and is this his or their idea.
From your posts, everyone had their moments to shine. Bring out the situations 2 and 3, and tell him that spotlight for everyone could be made with a mix of monsters/npcs in those fights. A mix of foes with and without DR and couple of knowledge checks could have made ALL of you shine in second example. In the third one, a couple of foes with fire resistance or evasion could have made a difference.
The first is a bit trickier, but i'm gonna need more info 'cause it seems that the whole of the group is having their tactics shifted 'cause of one guy.
Ok, another question, are these people your friends, or just people you game with?
Note: I'm going of your posts (and while i am well aware that you could be biased, you are the one who is asking for advice, not the other players or the DM, so i'm trying to help you), but this seems like a lazy/incompetent DM, who on top of that has his favorites (charging guy). Feel free to dissuade me to make things clearer.
|
|
...
The first is a bit trickier, but i'm gonna need more info 'cause it seems that the whole of the group is having their tactics shifted 'cause of one guy.
...
He doesn't always play like that. Just this particular character's personality.
Friends since the early 80's.
I don't know if the GM is making similar request of the other players. I kinda suspect he is, but didn't bring that up cause I'm not sure.
He's not incompetent or lazy. However, none of us have anywhere near the free time we once did long, long ago.
I'm not certain, but I don't think it is favoritism as much as wanting everyone to do equally great all the time.
The annoyance factor is I guess getting high enough that I have to do something. Otherwise I probably wouldn't have started this topic. I guess my choices are talk to him or make excuses and stop playing with the group. I just don't know. He isn't a guy that takes any percieved critisism well. He always treats it like a personal attack.
Is it an option just to ignore him when he tells you these things? I'm guessing you actually complied when you're complaining here.
Is it easier to talk to him via email? Just tell him that different characters are built for different things, and are not supposed to equally competent in ALL situations. Add those examples i told you.
For the charging guy, you should talk with that player privately. Or talk to the other players first and ask their opinion about "charging guy"'s performance.
In any case, the only solution is probably talking (like in all of the player/DM or player/player problems).